in which he blasted atheists for not having a sense of humor and talking about it so damn much:
It’s not that atheists don’t believe in God. That’s fine. It’s not against the law. Atheism is a coherent system of beliefs arrived at, I am sure, after some very serious and sober consideration.
Atheists are not being prosecuted or silenced. They are lovingly tended by media interviewers, me included, and their nuanced arguments are politely acknowledged.
The problem to me is that they won’t shut up about it.
The public, endless public profession of atheism to me reflects a whiny, whinging self-pitying narcissism.
In the last ten years or so, atheism has taken on some of the elements of fundamentalist Christianity.
Maybe he doesn’t get it because he’s Canadian. But on the off-chance he’s put more than a second of thought into this, then his ignorance is staggering here.
Atheists aren’t being prosecuted (or persecuted) or silenced? Tell that to Asif Mohiuddin and the relatives of the assassinated Dr. Narendra Dabholkar Too foreign? Then talk to the young atheists whose administrators put up barriers to them starting groups on their campuses or punish them for not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Or try speaking with all those atheists in Congress. (I’ll wait.) Or realize that several states’ constitutions still ban atheists from holding public office, even if those laws can no longer be enforced.
We’re lovingly tended to by the media? Tell that to Joe Klein of TIME magazine who incorrectly and unfairly maligned atheists with a throwaway line about how we’re never seen doing volunteer work after disasters. Tell that to commentator S.E. Cupp who said she would never consider voting for an atheist (despite being an atheist herself) or pundits who said there are no atheists in foxholes.
There’s a reason we don’t shut up about it. Religion has a stranglehold over the majority of our country as well as our policies. It’s religion that’s used to block women from controlling their own bodies and gays and lesbians from getting married. We can’t count on Christians to do the right thing, though some try, so we speak up, online or (if we can) in person. And you know what? We’re better off because we refuse to be silent.
It’s not narcissistic to say you’re an atheist when everyone around you has no problem wearing their cross necklaces, talking about how they’re praying for good luck or baptizing their children, and there’s a church on every block. Enright is so used to being in the majority that, when people in the minority say they’re different, he’s taken aback and finds something wrong with it.
And this idea that we’re like fundamentalist Christians, that we desire to miseducate children despite the evidence, that we want our country’s laws to reflect our own beliefs, that our lives revolve around a poorly written book, is just plain lazy. If you give us evidence that God exists, we’ll change our minds. If you give a fundamentalist Christian evidence that the Bible is wrong, they don’t care; the Bible says it so it must be true. Enright’s line says less about atheists and more about fundamentalist Christians who are so often used as a basis for comparison for other groups who are supposedly unlikeable and annoying.
If Enright ever loses his job for producing tripe like this, I’m sure he can find work on this side of the border at Fox News Channel or any of the Christian radio stations or TV stations that atheists don’t have, either.
Back in 2006 during the Bush administration, when the same type of surveillance was under the apparent cyclical scrutiny, Sean Hannity became the biggest supporter of the policy. In fact on his show he excoriated those who opposed it many times. The Mediamatters mash up below is a classic that shows the hypocrisy. While this may be funny to some and upsetting to others, the reason this type of hypocrisy must be explored is because of the corrosive effect it has on the body politic.
Pre-Obama:The intent here is not to solely point out the hypocrisy that is being engendered by this recycled debate. It is to show how the American people are being hoodwinked by the media. One can make an argument on either side of this debate that is both plausible and constitutional. This debate however must be intellectually honest. To date it has not been on either side.
We know that you are against the NSA data mining. We know that you are against the NSA surveillance program. So the question is, where does the Democratic Party, what will you do if you are elected to power to make our country safe from the war on terror. Specifically what would your party support.
You have Pat Leahy saying that he doesn’t want an NSA surveillance program. Nancy Polosi, the woman who’d love to be Speaker, she is against the NSA surveillance……
Is it right to say that issues regarding national security be it the NSA surveillance program, the data mining program, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay that Democrats are weak on issues involving national security.
Our techniques are working. We’ve got the NSA program here, we have the Patriot Act program here. In light of this how close this was,it’s staggering to me that we are even debating the use of these techniques in this country even at this time.
Big Brother is monitoring your every move whether it be online or on the telephone. Let’s talk about why this story, why is it important to you.
Number one, this is America and as law bided American citizens you have a right to privacy. Number two, these actions by the Obama administration are clear, very clear violations of the fourth amendment, which prohibits unlimited search and seizure. Number three, the Constitution, it is our rule of law. If we do not respect and honor the Constitution, then anarchy and tyranny will then follow.
The problem is the inconsistency of those engaged in the debate, the lack of pragmatic logic on some, and the complicity of the media in misleading Americans. It is true that Sean Hannity is nothing more than an ideologue with a dedicated following for which he is the puppeteer. It is also true that most Americans do not take him seriously.
The ‘respected’ media however is not very far behind Sean Hannity in either being manipulated by stories or being a party to the manipulation of stories. The NSA story has been out since 2006. The surprise and outrage being articulated by the mainstream media is at best fabricated for ratings.
Using and manipulating these stories have consequences. They take all the oxygen away from more important stories. Why is there no continuous story of a job recovery comprised mostly of substandard jobs? Why is there no continuous coverage of the real effects sequester is having on the poor and the middle class?
Allowing the same parties to take different sides of the same issue for political gain simply allow the metastasis of misinformation. Who can forget the media not stressing that the Healthcare Mandate was a Republican/Heritage Foundation idea that under Obama Republicans ran from. Who can forget that the carbon tax was a capitalist/Conservative/Republican approach, trading carbon, that Sarah Palin and others then labeled cap and tax.
I am absolutely shocked at how much concern the pundits on CNN are showing for these convicted rapists as if they were victims of circumstance!
I’ve heard enough about how much potential they had and how this verdict will affect their lives and how hard it was to watch them break down and cry in court.
All they said about the victim is that she didn’t really even want to bring charges.
"My greatest fear in the state of Maine: newspapers. I’m not a fan of newspapers."-
Republican governor PAUL LePAGE, of Maine, to a classroom full of students.
In an interview with a newspaper reporter, he would later add, “There’s a lack of objectivity (in newspapers). If they were fair and balanced, I would be a supporter.”
Last year, he told a group of 8th graders that reading newspapers was “like paying somebody to tell you lies.”
It must be fun, being so overly uninformed and willfully ignorant.
This reminds me of the religious folks that don’t like science …(via abaldwin360)
"The media didn’t hand it to Obama; after all, the Number One cable news channel, Fox, is right-wing. The Number One newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, also has a right-wing editorial slant (and is owned by the same guy who owns Fox News). The Number One talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity is Number Two, and Glenn Beck is Number Three. When you control all the largest media outlets, it’s time to stop grousing about liberal media bias."
Can we talk about how Fox News’s tagline is “Fair and Balanced” and how overwhelmingly ironic that is?
They are more fair and balanced than any other media network out there!
The other are to busy being hand-feed by the Obama Administration to see him for what he really is!
OK, first of all, conservativetildeath, shut up, you don’t know what you’re talking about, just shut up.
Second, we can talk about it, readysetallonsy. For starters, even looking at it objectively, without acknowledging it’s from Fox: The phrase makes no sense.
Fairness is if one girl scout sells 9 boxes of cookies and another sells 1 box, the first girl makes 9 dollars and the second girl makes 1 dollar. Assuming a girl scout earns a dollar per box sold, that’s fair. Balanced is if each girl gets 5 dollars.
In news, fairness is weighted toward fact. When more than 90% of the world’s climatologists identify a warming pattern and find links to greenhouse gas emissions, the story is: Scientists say climate change a threat. That’s fair. It’s not fair to portray the other side, the fringe who say it’s not real, as if that view deserves equal weight. That might be balanced, but it’s not fair. It’s stupid. It’s stupid like giving the girl who sold 1 box 5 dollars is stupid. Readysetallonsy, when stupid idiots like conservativetildeath accuse the media of being liberal, they’re just complaining about their views not lining up with reality. The whole mission of Fox News and the Washington Times and other right wing media outlets is to provide balance to what they see as an unfairly weighted industry. But what they’re seeing isn’t bias: It’s fairness. and if they want to balance out the fairness, a small minority of fringe crackpots get time equal to most scientists, because it’s politically convenient for a bunch of backward fucks who are entirely disconnected from reality.
Also, they rob successful girl scouts of 4 dollars.
Great explanation. How ironic, Fox et al balances news the way communism balances economic outcomes.
"If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can’t acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public."-
In which Nate Silver calls out nearly everyone in “news” organizations trying to push a pro-Romney narrative.
Nate Silver is not having any of your bullshit.
Logic does so burn on the way down, dunnit Republicans?
They all want it to be a photo finish because that’s more entertaining. I don’t doubt that the popular vote is going to be close but that’s simply not how you win the presidency, Obama is leading the total swing states by a mile.
Yeah, only way Republicans win is if they cheat hardcore … which they ARE trying their best to do, granted.